1. Attached Table 2, each of which the Defendant reported the rights in the Suwon District Court's Sung-nam Branch B real estate auction case.

Basic Facts

On November 11, 2015, the Asset Management Company filed an application for voluntary auction with the Suwon District Court for each of the real estate listed in the attached Table 2 List C owned by C (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant real estate”), and received a decision to commence auction on November 12, 2015.

(hereinafter “instant auction procedure”). The Plaintiff (Appointed Party; hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the Appointed Party D are the mortgagee of the instant real estate.

On January 18, 2016, the Defendant reported the lien of KRW 6,693,748,038 on the instant real estate as the secured claim at the auction procedure.

(hereinafter “this case’s lien”). [The ground for recognition] does not dispute, each entry in Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including each number number; hereinafter the same shall apply), and in a lawsuit of passive confirmation of the whole purport of the pleadings, where the plaintiff first specified the claim in order to deny the fact that the cause of the claim occurred by the plaintiff, the defendant, the creditor, bears the burden of proving the fact of the requirement of the legal relationship. Thus, in the instant case, the lawsuit for confirmation of non-existence of the right of retention, the defendant, who claimed the existence of the right of retention, must prove the existence of the claim related to the real estate of this case and the existence of the claim related to the relation

(see Supreme Court Decision 2013Da99409, Mar. 10, 2016). Possession, which is a requirement for establishing a lien, refers to an objective relationship in which an article appears to have been subject to the factual control of that person under social norms. At this time, factual control is not necessarily limited to physical actual control of an article, but should be determined in conformity with the concept of society by taking into account the time and spatial relationship with the object, the relationship between the object and the principal right, the possibility of exclusion from control of others, etc.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2011Da44788 Decided October 24, 2013). Welves, and the Defendant.